IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.07.2017 CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.13620 of 2017 Mrs.Begum Pasha Bee ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner, O/o Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Chief Commissioner, O/o Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) O/o. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue of writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to furnish information sought for by petitioner considering petitioner applications dated 27.01.2016 and 21.03.2016, submitted to respondents 1 to 4 http://www.judis.nic.in 2 respectfully, under Class (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 138 of Income Tax Act, 1961, within time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran for M/s.Mcgan Law Firm For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Panel Counsel. ORDER Heard Mr.N.Muralikumaran, for M/s.Mcgan Law Firm, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnana, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents. 2. relief sought for by petitioner in this writ petition appears to be innocuous relief to direct respondents 1 to 4 to consider petitioner's application filed under Section 138 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, within time frame. 3. petitioner's grievance appears to be with regard to functioning of public charitable trust, which has been granted under Section 12-A of Registration Act by Income Tax Department. Though petitioner in affidavit filed in support of writ petition has made various allegations and http://www.judis.nic.in 3 averments with regard to his family members etc, those allegations are not gone into and cannot be gone into or adjudicated in this writ petition for more than one reason. Firstly, all those private parties, whose names are mentioned in affidavit, have not been impleaded as respondents in writ petition. Secondly, allegations made against those private parties, pertain to administration of affairs of Trust and management of its assets, which cannot be gone into in writ petition that too, when direction is sought against Income Tax Department on application stated to have been submitted by petitioner under Section 138 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act. 4. petitioner has also sought for certain information under Right to Information Act and he has pursued remedy available under said Act and preferred appeal. Prior to that petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.26322 of 2015 for direction upon Deputy Director of Income Tax Exemptions II, and Income Tax Officer (OSD) Exemptions III, Chennai to consider representation dated 30.06.2015. said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 08.09.2015, by directing respondents to consider representation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner has received reply dated 16.11.2015 from Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai, which is in tabulated format, dealing with contention raised by petitioner in its letter dated 19.01.2015. Serial No.6 of said reply deals with contention that communication of http://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioner dated 30.06.2015 along with order of this Court in W.P.No.26322 of 2015, should be made to authority under Section 138 (b) of Income Tax Act to come to subjective satisfaction that information sought for, is in public interest. reply given by Income Tax Office is to following fact: provisions of 138 (b) stipulate that person seeking information relating to assessee should make application to prescribed authority mentioned in Section 138 (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, in prescribed Form (Form No.46). Hence, application may be made to prescribed authority in prescribed form. 5. Taking clue from above reply, petitioner has filed application under Section 138 (b) of Income Tax Act, dated 21.03.2016. This application is stated to have been sent by sped post and shown to have been received by office of third respondent on 22.03.2016 vide postal Acknowledgment card. 6. Thus, considering limited relief sought for by petitioner and without going into allegations made by petitioner against those private parties, there will be direction to competent authority of third respondent department to consider petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2016, purported to be application for information under Section 138 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act and pass speaking order on merits and in http://www.judis.nic.in 5 accordance with law after notice to all concerned including said Trust and its Trusties within period of eight weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 21.07.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet : Yes/No vsm To 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner, O/o Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Chief Commissioner, O/o Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) O/o. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. vsm W.P.No.13620 of 2017 21.07.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in Begum Pasha Bee v. Principal Chief Commissioner, Chennai / Chief Commissioner, Chennai / Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Chennai / Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai